Third Commandment.

THOU SHALT NOT TAKE THE NAME OF THE LORD THY GOD IN VAIN.
22. The purport of this Commandment is, that
the majesty of the name of God is to be held sacred. In sum, therefore, it
means, that we must not profane it by using it irreverently or contemptuously.
This prohibition implies a corresponding precept--viz. that it be our study and
care to treat his name with religious veneration. Wherefore it becomes us to
regulate our minds and our tongues, so as never to think or speak of God and
his mysteries without reverence and great soberness, and never, in estimating
his works, to have any feeling towards him but one of deep veneration. We must,
I say, steadily observe the three following things:--First, Whatever our
mind conceives of him, whatever our tongue utters, must bespeak his excellence,
and correspond to the sublimity of his sacred name; in short, must be fitted to
extol its greatness. Secondly, We must not rashly and preposterously
pervert his sacred word and adorable mysteries to purposes of ambition, or
avarice, or amusement, but, according as they bear the impress of his dignity,
must always maintain them in due honour and esteem. Lastly, We must not
detract from or throw obloquy upon his works, as miserable men are wont
insultingly to do, but must laud every action which we attribute to him as
wise, and just, and good. This is to sanctify the name of God. When we act
otherwise, his name is profaned with vain and wicked abuse, because it is
applied to a purpose foreign to that to which it is consecrated. Were there
nothing worse, in being deprived of its dignity it is gradually brought into
contempt. But if there is so much evil in the rash and unseasonable employment
of the divine name, there is still more evil in its being employed for
nefarious purposes, as is done by those who use it in necromancy, cursing,
illicit exorcisms, and other impious incantations. But the Commandment refers
especially to the case of oaths, in which a perverse employment of the divine
name is particularly detestable; and this it does the more effectually to deter
us from every species of profanation. That the thing here commanded relates to
the worship of God, and the reverence due to his name, and not to the equity
which men are to cultivate towards each other, is apparent from this, that
afterwards, in the Second Table, there is a condemnation of the perjury and
false testimony by which human society is injured, and that the repetition
would be superfluous, if, in this Commandment, the duty of charity were
handled. Moreover, this is necessary even for distinction, because, as was
observed, God has, for good reason, divided his Law into two tables. The
inference then is, that God here vindicates his own right, and defends his
sacred name, but does not teach the duties which men owe to men.
23. In the first place, we must consider what an
oath is. An oath, then, is calling God to witness that what we say is true.
Execrations being manifestly insulting to God, are unworthy of being classed
among oaths. That an oath, when duly taken, is a species of divine worship,
appears from many passages of Scripture, as when Isaiah prophesies of the
admission of the Assyrians and Egyptians to a participation in the covenant, he
says, "In that day shall five cities in the land of Egypt speak the language of
Canaan, and swear to the Lord of hosts," (Isaiah 19:18). Swearing by the name
of the Lord here means, that they will make a profession of religion. In like
manner, speaking of the extension of the Redeemer's kingdom, it is said, "He
who blesseth himself in the earth shall bless himself in the God of truth: and
he that sweareth in the earth shall swear by the God of truth," (Isaiah 65:16).
In Jeremiah it is said, "If they will diligently learn the ways of my people,
to swear by my name, The Lord liveth; as they taught my people to swear by
Baal; then shall they be built in the midst of my people," (Jer. 12:16). By
appealing to the name of the Lord, and calling him to witness, we are justly
said to declare our own religious veneration of him. For we thus acknowledge
that he is eternal and unchangeable truth, inasmuch as we not only call upon
him, in preference to others, as a fit witness to the truth, but as its only
assertor, able to bring hidden things to light, a discerner of the hearts. When
human testimony fails, we appeal to God as witness, especially when the matter
to be proved lies hid in the conscience. For which reason, the Lord is
grievously offended with those who swear by strange gods, and construes such
swearing as a proof of open revolt, "Thy children have forsaken me, and sworn
by them that are no gods," (Jer. 5:7). The heinousness of the offence is
declared by the punishment denounced against it, "I will cut off them that
swear by the Lord, and that swear by Malcham," (Zeph. 1:4, 5).
24. Understanding that the Lord would have our
oaths to be a species of divine worship, we must be the more careful that they
do not, instead of worship, contain insult, or contempt, and vilification. It
is no slight insult to swear by him and do it falsely: hence in the Law this is
termed profanation (Lev. 19:12). For if God is robbed of his truth, what is it
that remains? Without truth he could not be God. But assuredly he is robbed of
his truth, when he is made the approver and attester of what is false. Hence,
when Joshua is endeavouring to make Achan confess the truth, he says, "My son,
give, I pray thee, glory to the Lord God of Israel," (Joshua 7:19); intimating,
that grievous dishonour is done to God when men swear by him falsely. And no
wonder; for, as far as in them lies, his sacred name is in a manner branded
with falsehood. That this mode of expression was common among the Jews whenever
any one was called upon to take an oath, is evident from a similar obtestation
used by the Pharisees, as given in John (John 9:24); Scripture reminds us of
the caution which we ought to use by employing such expressions as the
following:--"As the Lord liveth;" "God do so and more also;" "I call God for a
record upon my soul."206 Such expressions intimate, that we cannot
call God to witness our statement, without imprecating his vengeance for
perjury if it is false.
25. The name of God is vulgarised and vilified
when used in oaths, which, though true, are superfluous. This, too, is to take
his name in vain. Wherefore, it is not sufficient to abstain from perjury,
unless we, at the same time, remember that an oath is not appointed or allowed
for passion or pleasure, but for necessity; and that, therefore, a licentious
use is made of it by him who uses it on any other than necessary occasions.
Moreover, no case of necessity can be pretended, unless where some purpose of
religion or charity is to be served. In this matter, great sin is committed in
the present day--sin the more intolerable in this, that its frequency has made
it cease to be regarded as a fault, though it certainly is not accounted
trivial before the judgment-seat of God. The name of God is everywhere profaned
by introducing it indiscriminately in frivolous discourse; and the evil is
disregarded, because it has been long and audaciously persisted in with
impunity. The commandment of the Lord, however, stands; the penalty also
stands, and will one day receive effect. Special vengeance will be executed on
those who have taken the name of God in vain. Another form of violation is
exhibited, when, with manifest impiety, we, in our oaths, substitute the holy
servants of God for God himself,207 thus conferring upon them the
glory of his Godhead. It is not without cause the Lord has, by a special
commandment, required us to swear by his name, and, by a special prohibition,
forbidden us to swear by other gods.208 The Apostle gives a clear
attestation to the same effect, when he says, that "men verily swear by the
greater;" but that "when God made promise to Abraham, because he could swear by
no greater, he sware by himself;" (Heb. 6:16, 13).
26. The Anabaptists, not content with this
moderate use of oaths, condemn all, without exception, on the ground of our
Saviour's general prohibition, "I say unto you, Swear not at all:" "Let your
speech be Yea, yea; Nay, nay: for whatsoever is more than these cometh of
evil," (Mt. 5:34; James 5:12). In this way, they inconsiderately make a
stumbling-stone of Christ, setting him in opposition to the Father, as if he
had descended into the world to annul his decrees. In the Law, the Almighty not
only permits an oath as a thing that is lawful (this were amply sufficient),
but, in a case of necessity, actually commands it (Exod. 22:11). Christ again
declares, that he and his Father are one; that he only delivers what was
commanded of his Father; that his doctrine is not his own, but his that sent
him (John 10:18, 30; 7:16). What then? Will they make God contradict himself,
by approving and commanding at one time, what he afterwards prohibits and
condemns? But as there is some difficulty in what our Saviour says on the
subject of swearing, it may be proper to consider it a little. Here, however,
we shall never arrive at the true meaning, unless we attend to the design of
Christ, and the subject of which he is treating. His purpose was, neither to
relax nor to curtail the Law, but to restore the true and genuine meaning,
which had been greatly corrupted by the false glosses of the Scribes and
Pharisees. If we attend to this we shall not suppose that Christ condemned all
oaths but those only which transgressed the rule of the Law. It is evident,
from the oaths themselves, that the people were accustomed to think it enough
if they avoided perjury, whereas the Law prohibits not perjury merely, but also
vain and superfluous oaths. Therefore our Lord, who is the best interpreter of
the Law, reminds them that there is a sin not only in perjury, but in swearing.
How in swearing? Namely, by swearing vainly. Those oaths, however, which are
authorised by the Law, he leaves safe and free. Those who condemn oaths think
their argument invincible when they fasten on the expression, not at
all. The expression applies not to the word swear, but to the
subjoined forms of oaths. For part of the error consisted in their supposing,
that when they swore by the heaven and the earth, they did not touch the name
of God. The Lord, therefore, after cutting off the principal source of
prevarication, deprives them of all subterfuges, warning them against supposing
that they escape guilt by suppressing the name of God, and appealing to heaven
and earth. For it ought here to be observed in passing, that although the name
of God is not expressed, yet men swear by him in using indirect forms, as when
they swear by the light of life, by the bread they eat, by their baptism, or
any other pledges of the divine liberality towards them. Some erroneously
suppose that our Saviour, in that passage, rebukes superstition, by forbidding
men to swear by heaven and earth, and Jerusalem. He rather refutes the
sophistical subtilty of those who thought it nothing vainly to utter indirect
oaths, imagining that they thus spared the holy name of God, whereas that name
is inscribed on each of his mercies. The case is different, when any mortal
living or dead, or an angel, is substituted in the place of God, as in the vile
form devised by flattery in heathen nations, "By the life or genius of the
king"; for, in this case, the false apotheosis obscures and impairs the
glory of the one God. But when nothing else is intended than to confirm what is
said by an appeal to the holy name of God, although it is done indirectly, yet
his majesty is insulted by all frivolous oaths. Christ strips this abuse of
every vain pretext when he says "Swear not at all". To the same effect is the
passage in which James uses the words of our Saviour above quoted (James 5:12).
For this rash swearing has always prevailed in the world, notwithstanding that
it is a profanation of the name of God. If you refer the words, "not at
all", to the act itself, as if every oath, without exception, were
unlawful, what will be the use of the explanation which immediately
follows--Neither by heaven, neither by the earth, &c.? These words make it
clear, that the object in view was to meet the cavils by which the Jews thought
they could extenuate their fault.
27. Every person of sound judgment must now see
that in that passage our Lord merely condemned those oaths which were forbidden
by the Law. For he who in his life exhibited a model of the perfection which he
taught, did not object to oaths whenever the occasion required them; and the
disciples, who doubtless in all things obeyed their Master, followed the same
rule. Who will dare to say that Paul would have sworn (Rom. 1:9; 2 Cor. 1:23)
if an oath had been altogether forbidden? But when the occasion calls for it,
he adjures without any scruple, and sometimes even imprecates. The question,
however, is not yet disposed of. For some think that the only oaths exempted
from the prohibition are public oaths, such as those which are administered to
us by the magistrate, or independent states employ in ratifying treaties, or
the people take when they swear allegiance to their sovereign, or the soldier
in the case of the military oath, and others of a similar description. To this
class they refer (and justly) those protestations in the writings of Paul,
which assert the dignity of the Gospel; since the Apostles, in discharging
their office, were not private individuals, but the public servants of God. I
certainly deny not that such oaths are the safest because they are most
strongly supported by passages of Scripture. The magistrate is enjoined, in a
doubtful matter, to put the witness upon oath; and he in his turn to answer
upon oath; and an Apostle says, that in this way there is an end of all strife
(Heb. 6:16). In this commandment, both parties are fully approved. Nay, we may
observe, that among the ancient heathens a public and solemn oath was held in
great reverence, while those common oaths which were indiscriminately used were
in little or no estimation, as if they thought that, in regard to them, the
Deity did not interpose. Private oaths used soberly, sacredly, and reverently,
on necessary occasions, it were perilous to condemn, supported as they are by
reason and example. For if private individuals are permitted, in a grave and
serious matter, to appeal to God as a judge, much more may they appeal to him
as a witness. Your brother charges you with perfidy. You, as bound by the
duties of charity, labour to clear yourself from the charge. He will on no
account be satisfied. If, through his obstinate malice, your good name is
brought into jeopardy, you can appeal, without offence, to the judgment of God,
that he may in time manifest your innocence. If the terms are weighed, it will
be found that it is a less matter to call upon him to be witness; and I
therefore see not how it can be called unlawful to do so. And there is no want
of examples. If it is pretended that the oath which Abraham and Isaac made with
Abimelech was of a public nature, that by which Jacob and Laban bound
themselves in mutual league was private. Boaz, though a private man, confirmed
his promise of marriage to Ruth in the same way. Obadiah, too, a just man, and
one that feared God, though a private individual, in seeking to persuade
Elijah, asseverates with an oath.209 I hold, therefore, that there
is no better rule than so to regulate our oaths that they shall neither be
rash, frivolous, promiscuous, nor passionate, but be made to serve a just
necessity; in other words, to vindicate the glory of God, or promote the
edification of a brother. This is the end of the Commandment.